Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-01-28
RICAusE OF INSANITY
The Jury in the Case of Fenny Wfezei
Pronounce Her Not Guilty of Murder.

Yesterday. in Department Two OF tn
Superior Court, Charles 7. Jones made tn
closing argument for the prosecution IL
the Wheel Klein case, concluding abou
noon In the afternoon Judge Wilson de
livered his charge to the jury, thoroughly
instructing them as to their duties. Rela
tive to insanity his remarks were explicit
and strong, and we give them, knowing
that they will be read with interest:
1t is claimed by the defense, as | under
| stand, that at the time when the homicide
is alleged to have been committed, the de-
PENDANT was insane, as | have before re-
marked. The law declares that the intent
with which public offense is committed,
is manifested by the circumstances con-
nected there with, and the sound mind and
discretion of the accused. All persons are
of sound mind who are neither idiots, nor
lunatics, nor affected with insanity. In
sanity means such diseased and deranged
condition of the mental faculties as to rem
der the person incapable of distinguishing
between right and wrong at the time OF.
and in relation to, the act with which she
is charged. All persons have not the same
mental force or characteristics, nor is the
same person at all times in the same con-
dition as to mental powers or physical
strength. Her faculties may be impaired
by sickness, or by causes calculated TO dis
turb or influence her passions, yet if she be
in the possession of her senses and able to
judge Of the particular act for which she
is arraigned and to distinguish between
right and wrong in regard to it, she is
morally and legally responsible for her
conduct and amenable to the laws of the
land. In determining this question you
are to consider the character and nature
of the defendants acts as evil
denced by her conduct, memory, con-
versations, acts, temperament and
disposition, and you are to consider all the
acts and conduct of the defendant at the
time of, before, and subsequent TO, the
alleged commission of the offense; and i'll
order to hold her criniinally responsible
therefor, you must be satisfied that she had
sufficient mental capacity to distinguish
between right and wrong as applied to the
act she was about to commit, and was con-
scious that she was doing wrong. Frenzy
arising from the passions of anger, hatred
or revenge, no matter how furious, II not
the result of diseased mind, is not in a
legal sense insanity. You must not con-
found anger or wrath with actual insanity,
because, however absurd and unreasonable
such may be- or however person may act
when suddenly angered, if b er mind is not
deranged it is not legally an excuse for the
violation of the law. The law does not
require as a condition upon which Grim
inal responsibility shall follow the COM
mission of crime the possession of all the
faculties with full power and vigor, or
mind wholly unimpaired by disease. The
law rejects the doctrine of what is called
emotional or temporary insanity which
begins on the eve of the criminal act and
ends with its commission which enables
one who does not choose to bride her pas
sions to allow them to sway her just long
enough To commit a crime and then SUBJ
side. An irresistible impulse to commit
an act which one knows to be wrongful
does not constitute the insanity which is a
legal defense. If one voluntarily allows
her passions unlimited sway she is re-
sponsible for acts which she commits
under its impulse. The law does not
an insanity which exists only at
the time, and for the purpose of the COM
mission of a crime. Insanity is q mani
festation of disease of the brain, and the
doctrine that an individual can be entirely
sane the moment before and the moment
after criminal act is perpetrated, and yetin
sane at the time of its commission, is con-
trary to every principle of law and sense.
If you believe from the evidence in this
case that the defendant was affected with
and had an insane impulse to kill the de-
ceased, but that she could have successfully
resisted it, she should have done SO, and if
she did not, she is criminally responsible
for the act. Whether she had such i'm
pulse and whether she could or could not
have resisted 1t, are questions for you, gen.
tlemen, alone to determine. The law has
never recognized an impulse as uncontrol-
able which leaves the reasoning powers.
the capacity to appreciate the
nature and quality of the particular act,
by mental disease. The true
test to be adopted upon this subject is this /:
whether the accused had sufficient reason
to know right from wrong, and if she had
intelligence to know it, whether
she had sufficient power to control her
actions. is a matter of no moment what
ever Whenever one has reason enough to
know that she is doing wrong when she
commits an unlawful act, il is her duty TO
control herself, duty for the omission of
which the laws of the land will not hold
her guiltless. The law presumes person
sane.
Insanity is valid defense if satisfactorily
shown by the evidence in the case. Where
insanity is relied upon as a defense the
burden Of proof is upon the defendant.
The proof must be such in amount that if
the single issue of sanity or insanity of the
defendant was submitted to you in civil
action you must find that the defendant
was insane. The insanity must be estab-
lished by a preponderance of evidence.
And by preponderance of evidence |
mean that degree of proof that induces the
mind IF ahla man 70 haliava ono
side of an issue in preference to the other.
The defendant is not bound to prove it
beyond a reasonable doubt But on the
other hand it is not sufficient to create
reasonable doubt in your minds that the
defendant was or may be insane. The
must be plainly appar-
emit 1t is not sufficient that you
may entertain n reasonable doubt as
to her sanity. The defense of insanity is
one which may be, and sometimes is, re-
sorted to in cases in which the proof of the
crime is so complete that any other means
of avoiding conviction seems hopeless.
While, therefore, such defense should be
weighed fairly and justly, and when salts
established must recommend itself
to the sense of humanity and justice of the
Jury, you are 20 examine it with care, lest
an ingenious counterfeit of mental iniirm-
llN SNAIL luTilSn liuIuuully u CUNT.
The Judge concluded his charge as fol-
lows:
Now, gentlemen, the most important
part of your duty begins. You have been
accepted as jurors i'll this case, by the Peo-
pie on one side and the defense upon the
other, with the full assurance that you
would perform your duty with the strctest
impartiality You have sworn to well and
truly try this case, and true verdict rem
der according to the evidence and the law
rs given to you by the Court. You are to
determine it entirely upon the evidence
which you have heard in Court and the
law thus given you; nothing which you
may have heard or read outside of this
Courtroom should in any manner control
Or affect your deliberation. II is your duty
to decide the case solely upon the evidence
here presented and the law here given, and
to perform your duty without being in
huenced by prejudice or swayed by sym
patty.
If YOU should find the defendant guilty
Of murder in the first degree, but should
not desire that she suffer the extreme
of the law, then the form of your
verdict should be- I'VE, the Jury, find
the defendant guilty of murder IN the first
degree and fix her punishment at impris-
in the State Prison for life" If
you find the defendant guilty of murder
in the first degree, and your verdict is silent
in respect to the penalty, the Court must
then pronounce the death sentence. In that